Reaffirming its prior Full Bench ruling and Supreme Court approval, the court held that criminal proceedings for offences under Sections 420, 406 IPC and Section 24 of the Immigration Act can be quashed based on a voluntary compromise between parties. This binding precedent strengthens the discretion of courts under Section 528 BNSS for quashing FIRs where settlement is bona fide and does not affect public interest.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/44030/2025 of AMIT KUMAR @ BITTU Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER |
| CNR | PHHC011273222025 |
| Date of Registration | 11-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for subordinate courts; persuasive for coordinate benches and other HCs |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure; Quashing of Criminal Proceedings under Section 528 BNSS |
| Questions of Law | Whether FIR and subsequent proceedings under Sections 420/406 IPC and Section 24 Immigration Act may be quashed solely on the basis of a genuine compromise between parties under Section 528 BNSS. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that where the parties have voluntarily settled their dispute, and the compromise has been found to be genuine and without coercion, continuation of criminal proceedings serves no useful purpose. Following binding precedent, it is permissible under Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR and all subsequent proceedings in such cases. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Discretion to quash criminal proceedings where settlement does not harm societal interest; importance of voluntary and genuine compromise; Section 528 BNSS powers analogous to Section 482 CrPC. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | FIR No. 543 dated 18.07.2025 was registered under Sections 420 and 406 IPC and Section 24 of the Immigration Act. Parties appeared before the Magistrate for verification of the compromise, which was found to be genuine and without undue influence or coercion. The State did not dispute the compromise. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court (in absence of conflicting SC precedent) |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that FIRs under Sections 420/406 IPC and Section 24 of the Immigration Act may be quashed on the basis of a voluntary and genuine compromise, provided no societal interest is affected.
- Magistrate’s report confirming genuineness and absence of coercion in the compromise is critical.
- State’s lack of objection is a supportive but not decisive factor.
- Lawyers should cite the binding Full Bench and Supreme Court authorities for similar quashing petitions under Section 528 BNSS.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court examined whether it is appropriate to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 420, 406 IPC and Section 24 of the Immigration Act on the basis of compromise.
- Directed parties to record statements before the Magistrate to assess the genuineness of the compromise.
- Relied on the Magistrate’s report, which found the compromise voluntary and free from coercion.
- Affirmed the Full Bench judgment (2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052), which allows for quashing criminal proceedings where the dispute is private in nature and has been amicably settled.
- Noted approval of this principle by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303.
- Held that prosecuting such disputes further serves no useful purpose; inherent powers (now Section 528 BNSS) may be exercised to quash proceedings in appropriate cases.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought quashing of FIR and subsequent proceedings on the basis of a compromise between parties.
- Submitted that the compromise was reached voluntarily.
State
- Did not dispute the compromise.
Respondent No. 2
- Appeared before the Magistrate and gave statement supporting the compromise.
- Confirmed the compromise was voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence.
Factual Background
An FIR was registered as No. 543 dated 18.07.2025 at Police Station Karnal Sadar under Sections 420, 406 IPC, and Section 24 of the Immigration Act. During the proceedings, the parties entered into a compromise. The court directed the parties to have their statements recorded before the Magistrate, who subsequently reported the compromise to be genuine and voluntarily executed.
Statutory Analysis
- The key statutory provision examined was Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which confers inherent powers upon the High Court to quash criminal proceedings.
- The court interpreted Section 528 BNSS as being analogous to Section 482 of the CrPC, thereby importing previous judicial guidance regarding the scope of quashing for offences of a private nature where a genuine compromise has been reached and public interest is unaffected.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded in this judgment. The judgment was delivered orally and unanimously by MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR.
Procedural Innovations
- Directed parties to record statements before the Magistrate to verify the voluntariness and genuineness of the compromise.
- Magistrate required to submit a report on whether compromise is genuine and free of coercion.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law is affirmed, following both binding High Court and Supreme Court precedents on quashing in light of compromise in criminal cases.